PRESS RELEASE 30/08/2010
The Reform Party www.thereformparty.net
The Reform Party’s Response to the PM’s National Day Rally Speech
The Reform Party was disappointed with the PM’s speech. This was an opportunity for the PM to address some of the pressing issues facing this country and his failure to do so has demonstrated once again that our government is out of touch with the people. Here is the Party’s view on some of these issues and our proposed solutions. Economic performance
The PM praised Singapore’s economic performance this year. However this has been built on the back of a vigorous US recovery, which is now fading fast. Singapore’s performance is just a leveraged version of what most of the other Asian economies have experienced. Given that imports subtracted 2.4% from US GDP growth in the last quarter it is clear that we are fast approaching the limits of what can be achieved by reliance on US demand. There are few signs that Asia has replaced the US as a source of final demand. So we can expect a dramatic slowdown in growth for the second half of this year and perhaps even a technical recession where growth is negative over two quarters.
And let’s remember that while unemployment may have been contained Singapore workers have suffered real wage cuts that are a long way from being restored.
The wage guidelines for next year of a 3% pay rise would still be lower than expected inflation of 3-4%. In other words real wages will continue to fall.
The Reform Party is of the view that our level of net saving is unnecessarily high and we would do more to stimulate domestic consumption by reducing taxes or increasing transfer payments to the less well-off.
Foreign worker/Immigration policies
Buried in the PM’s speech was the eye-opening detail that 400,000 Singaporeans (or about 20% of the domestic labor force) are receiving workfare of an average $1,000 each (most of which goes into CPF). This is the segment of the population which has suffered most from the PAP’s open-door foreign worker policy, yet there were no policy measures announced to help them.
The PM relied on isolated anecdotes to downplay the level of anti- foreign worker sentiment that threatens to spill over into xenophobia. He provided no reassurances on immigration policy and no evidence of how the PAP policies have benefitted the ordinary Singaporean or older retrenched workers. The folksy stories of aunties do however concur with our experience that Singaporeans are not xenophobic by nature but have been pushed that way by PAP policy.
The Reform Party supports the policy of allowing easy access to foreign workers with special skills, but we should ultimately be looking to provide Singaporeans with the skill sets to take their place over the longer term. We do not agree that this country needs foreign workers to compete directly with Singaporeans on all levels of the workforce.
It is difficult to see how Microsoft’s need for skilled software engineers translates into the necessity of having foreign chambermaids or shop assistants. Nor indeed why any MNC (such as Microsoft) if it lacks skilled engineers should not reciprocate for the benefits of being based in Singapore, by running training courses to bring our local engineers up to the specification that they require. It is difficult to see why we should fight so hard to retain industries that employ 80-90% foreign workers as it just increases the competition for domestic inputs whose supply is inelastic, such as land.
The Reform Party is pleased that the PM has responded to our call for the need to raise productivity. Unfortunately PAP policies such as the current excessively liberal foreign worker policy are antithetical to productivity growth as they only serves to keep cost of labour low. The government has yet to show any real commitment or clear cut long term strategy to increasing productivity.
National Service
The only concrete initiative was to reward NS men with a grant of $9,000. Few details were provided other than to say that it could be used to pay for further education (which the Reform Party would make free for NS men) and for housing (where sky-high prices are the result of deliberate government policy in restricting the supply of land and growing the population at an unsustainable rate).
The Reform Party believes that $9,000 in a restricted account does not come close to reflecting the economic cost Singaporean NS men face with two years of lost earnings.
Furthermore, the PM said that future education fees will have to rise, presumably to cover this additional expense.
The Reform Party continues to propose, in this regard:
Lower taxes for NS men
Obligation on foreign students on Singapore scholarships wishing to work here to serve NS
Cutting the NS period down to a year at maximum within 5 years
A target for zero death in training
Education
On education, the Reform Party has repeatedly called for a reduction in the weighting given to PSLE in order to provide a more holistic education. We have also called for an abolishment of streaming at the early stages of education, between N levels and O levels as we want to offer opportunities for late bloomers who do poorly at PSLE to move up if they do well.
The party is disappointed with the PM’s 30% target for enrollment and his excuses for not expanding further. Again the PAP demonstrate their inability to formulate any long term innovative strategy for increased enrollment in institution where learning is targeted at the skills required in the workforce. The Reform Party has also called for the need to increase the percentage of university enrolment up to advanced nation standards.
The PM failed to touch on any measures that would ensure all of Singapore’s children receive an equal right to an education, including the physically challenged, those with learning difficulties, or other issues such as familial economic hardship.
Conclusion
It is interesting to see yet again how much Reform Party thinking is now reflected in Government policy but this begs the question of why we need a PAP government in the first place. In response, I reproduce below the Reform Party’s 19 policy pledges so the electorate can judge who has the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans at the heart of their policies. It is all very well to talk of the Singapore spirit but this is a government which continues to insist on running Singapore as a business and has downgraded Singapore from Sovereign Nation status to International city status.
Our Pledges
Providing Cheaper and Better Lower-Income Housing by releasing more land for house-building and allowing the private sector a greater role
Universal health insurance to be funded through current CPF contributions replacing current Medisave and Medishield schemes
Basic Old Age Pension payable to all provided they have worked and paid into CPF for a sufficient number of years
Reform of CPF to make contributions above those necessary to fund health and unemployment insurance and basic pension voluntary
Universal child benefit scheme (as part of Guaranteed Minimum Income) to replace current tax breaks that heavily favour women on higher incomes
Guaranteed Minimum Income for those in work to replace current Workfare system and to be integrated with child benefit and tax system
A Minimum Wage to encourage businesses to raise productivity
Reforms to Foreign Worker Policy to ensure that business gets the skilled labour it needs but that our own citizens come first
Reductions in or exemptions from GST for certain categories of goods like food that form a higher proportion of total expenditure for those on median incomes and below
Universal free and compulsory education from pre-school through to secondary level
Expanded university enrolment and increased investment in improving quality of education for everyone
Increased assistance for older workers and women re-entering the labour market to retrain and acquire new educational qualifications
Reduction in NS to 18 months initially with aim to reduce it to one year as soon as feasible
Requirement for new citizens and PRs to do NS or to pay lump sum tax instead
Privatization of Temasek and GIC and distribution of equity to Singaporean citizens of more than five years standing
Continuing Business and Foreign Investment Friendly Environment coupled with low tax rates
Greater help and support for local SMEs to grow world-class companies
Abolish restrictions on freedom of expression to encourage creativity and innovation necessary for a 21st century knowledge-based economy
Reduce waste and inefficiency in government starting with slashing ministerial salaries and replacing it with performance-linked earnings tied to indicators directly related to your welfare
Released by Kenneth Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Reform Party, August 30th 2010
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Kenneth said: “The Reform Party is of the view that our level of net saving is unnecessarily high and we would do more to stimulate domestic consumption by reducing taxes or increasing transfer payments to the less well-off.”
But Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) are having financial problems precisely because their level of net savings is too low. These countries have huge budget deficit and government debt. Please see SPIEGEL ONLINE article ‘Europe’s Debt Crisis’. Do we really want to go the way of PIIGS?
and i agree that perhaps streaming at a young age may not necessarily be the best way to go. which is why MOE has introduced subject based banding (and this was introduced long before the Reform Party was in existence).
also, MOE has done much to introduce porosity between the various streams. students who do well can move from Normal Academic stream to the Express stream (again, something that has been introduced well before TRP came into existence).
but beyond porosity, a lot of teachers i speak to have mentioned that there students for whom the O-Level style of education may not be the most suitable. these students are not academic book type students. but they are very good with their hands, they have skills and prefer hands-on type course. for these students, they would certainly welcome PM’s announcement that they now hv a choice to skip the O-Levels and go through to the Polys and do their diploma and thereafter, possibly even their degrees.
i also agree that there may be need to re-think the importance of PSLE. but i think it’s not the government alone that needs to be engaged in this exercise. now students can gain admission to their choice schools using the Direct School Admissions exercise (DSA), which recognises students who are talented in various areas. i know of students who score 200 in PSLE making to top schools because they are very good in some sport or other. so the route exists. but i wonder whether the child really benefits from being in that ‘top’ school. instinctively, i would think that the child’s quality of school experience might not be that fantastic and his social emotional development may be all that healthy. so the question is, why the fixation on getting into those “good” schools? would it not be better to recognise that the child needs to learn at a certain pace, go to a school which best supports that pace, rather than for the parent to try ways and means to get the child into those few schools?
in any case, i would be most interested to see what suggestions RP can come up with to rebalance the PSLE and provide a more holistic education to the child, while ensuring that the child can still grow up to be a useful cog and wheel in the economic machinery of Singapore (sad, yes. but we do need to have a population educated in the right ways to ensure that our economy continues to grow and we continue to have money to pay for various things…).
Dear Kenneth,
Is TRP saying that it is the “first” to say there will be a slowdown.
I observe that TRP has been making fanciful claims, and again in this article, that TRP is the source of ideas eventually adopted by Government.
Come down to earth please. I suggest TRP learn from Mr Low and Mr Chiam – claim credit only when it is really yours.
Even the PAP ministers do not claim to be the first to say so. In PM Lee’s national day message, it was highlighted that “Growth is likely to moderate in the second half. Still, MTI forecasts growth for the year to be between 13 and 15%. This exceptional performance is the fruit of Singaporeans’ united response during the crisis. This enabled us to take full advantage of improved global conditions. But let us not get carried away. Risks remain in the world economy, especially in Europe and the US. The global financial system is not fully mended. Singapore is small and open. If the world economy turns bad, we will be buffeted.“
Or is TRP repeating what the PAP has said?
Lotus, 31 August 2010
in response to your 1st post:-
why does PAP need to source ideas from other political parties? with all the brains they have they cannot even beat a smaller organisation with less brain numerically?
how can people who copy others be true leaders?
……………………………………..
Owen, 31 August 2010
increasing domestic spending alone will not necessarily result in huge budget deficit & govt debt.
a weak domestic consumption cannot support the service & retail sector that this current govt is pushing people into building careers. a weak domestic support may lead many to structured unemployment if things take a turn for the worse. will the govt then say things like they’re caught off-guard, it’s unavoidable? it was reported just a few weeks ago that Heeren is seeing a retail glut with new malls popping up. i am sure it isn’t the only mall, there is another near Clark Quay NEL station facing similiar situation.
perhaps, the question is how does one give domestic consupmtion a healthy sustainable boost, & not just a squirt? through higher salaries for all, & then more questions like how to do it, so on… but that’s getting out of topic here?….
fyi, i am not RP spokesperson.
Now then try to build more hospitals and medical school. How to cater to 5 million people, what if got some superbug. They are short sighted and slow responsiveness. How to be medical tourism hub.
Better build more old folks home and IMH for those that cannot make it in Singapoor anymore. No money to retire. CPF not enough. No jobs.
crc – 31 August 2010
//and were our forefathers not aliens to this land when they first came too?//
*
Perhaps a timeline is appropriate to narrow the period that our forefather were able to give an inexperienced LKY and a new PAP the opportunity to lead us out of Colonial Rule.
*
*
//and i agree that perhaps streaming at a young age may not necessarily be the best way to go. which is why MOE has introduced subject based banding (and this was introduced long before the Reform Party was in existence).//
*
SDP and CSJ had already criticised the early streaming of children as early as in 1992; and he continue to advocate for changes to the education system as part of the SDP manifesto.
It was only when Minister Tharman included Education into his portfolio that changes were made by plagiarising ideas from the SDP and CSJ.
CSJ is a child psychologist and has spend the better part of his years studying and observing the behaviorial disorders of Singapore’s youngsters.
Try reading some of CSJ’s book first published in 1992.
@Owen – 31 August 2010
//Kenneth said: “The Reform Party is of the view that our level of net saving is unnecessarily high and we would do more to stimulate domestic consumption by reducing taxes or increasing transfer payments to the less well-off.”
But Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) are having financial problems precisely because their level of net savings is too low. These countries have huge budget deficit and government debt. Please see SPIEGEL ONLINE article ‘Europe’s Debt Crisis’. Do we really want to go the way of PIIGS?//
*
The trick is in the balancing between two extremes.
The Singapore model has been studied by economists who have all concluded that there is too much savings that leave Singaporeans impoverished.
While at the other end such as your description of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain – there are limited savings or volume of state controlled revenue collecting channels.
There are no national saving plans such as the CPF in these European countries – whose economy is at the same time based on free market of private enterprise.
Unlike in Singapore, the State Government provide all essential services with ownership in the guise of private enterprise – that are largely capitalised by the State.
Singapore has an extensive and elaborate revenue collecting channels that begin with CPF, GST, ERP, to lavatory tax, income tax, airport tax, – supplemented by the various monopolies of transport companies, telecommunication, main stream broadcast and print medias – control of housing and land, ports and airports – all of which contribute a significant amount of revenue inflow that reflects money from the citizens flowing into the state treasury through various channels.
None of your named countries have economies that resemble or even come close to be like Singapore.
Either extremes will leave the country broken or broke – and the economist in Kenneth Jeyeratnam must surely appreciate this better then anyone in the Pro Alien Party, since the departure of the late Dr Goh Keng Swee, who was also an Economist by training.
andrew leung, 31 August 2010
yeah loh, i agree with you on building more hospitals & having enough to cater to the population 1st.
if got superbug, the masses who cannot get adequate medical care “can’t be helped”? another “caught offguard” instance.
perhaps, the saddest part is how people’s aspirations are cast aside to fulfil the needs of the country. such approach really limits the potential of the people, instead of maximising each individuals capability.
the current drive to encourage people to enter service, retail & hospitality industry may bring about another round of structural unemployment if those sector cannot sustain. the end result is that people from those sector will have to start careers from scratch (again?). history may just repeat itself, only that the next downgrade may be worse than the last….
:(
RP’s pledges look good and sound nice, but where to get the money to fund all these “promises”? Are you steering RP to become another Greece??
Dear Kenneth,
If TRP wholeheartedly supports the policy of allowing easy access to foreign workers with special skills, can TRP please provide more concrete evidence on how such a policy would benefit our own workers?
@SH – No government can spend more than it receive for too long. It is a question of priority and philosophy of governance. Take for example RP proposal of minimum wage to replace Workfare – Minimum wage is getting a commitment from the employers on a standard of living and a recognition of the cost of living. On the other hand, Workfare is a handouts by the government that make the worker beholden to the government paid forth by the tax payer. The former is certainly a sustainable and equitable policy.
And for those who use the argument that “Europe economies is bankrupt and heading down the drain by the welfare policies adopted”, please get a reality check. Europe standard of living (purchasing power, sense of security and citizenry participations) for the average citizen (not those earning millions a year) is still way above us. You will not find many people willing to trade places with you if you are an average Joe in Singapore. Despite some mess, the European will find solutions to their problems because they are organised, while in Singapore many would wait for the “only solution” for the government.
I hope RP can further elaborate on their pledges above to be more informative. giving more data, charts, table etc.
eg:
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2010/speech_toc/index.html
RP was founded by JBJ,the ‘FATHER OF OPPOSITION’ of the LEE’S era.
JBJ sacrificed his personal conveniences in life in order to represent the common singaporeans.
let’s hope RP work with the rest of the OPPOSITION to reclaim our citizens’ rights and dignity.
REFORMATION rewuires total commitment and collaboration amongst all OPPOSITION parties and the aggregate effort of all true blue singaporeans.
it is my hope that all opposition can unite and stand as one for the good of singapore and singaporeans who are waiting for the advent of a truly CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE GOVT.
The PAP stole from JB Jeyaratnam his “caring society”.
Since 98% of parliament is made up of PAP MPs, it is not necessary to at this initial stage to elaborate on the details. The PAP will steal the idea from you.
Any opposition party policies and pledges is better than PAP’s nepotism and crony capitalism.
I am a Singapore who went through National Service and felt that personally I learnt a lot from the Army life. Besides the occasional “siam arrows”, I emerged physically and mentally stronger which now helps in my working life. So where got places that trained you to be a better person and then give you money and benefits.
The $9,000 grant is good gesture of appreciation.
As an average income earner, I prefer the $9,000 than lower tax rate for NSmen. Lowering tax rate will only benefit the richer, high-earning NSmen (probably top 20%) and neglecting the lower-income NSmen.
i think it is interesting that atobe is so keen on saying that PAP is “stealing ideas from here and there”. shouldn’t that be what a good government do? listen to feedback, analyse impact, review and revise policies as and when necessary?
the government just can’t win now can it? if it listens to feedback and change, then it is accused of stealing people’s ideas. if it doesn’t change, doesn’t respond to feedback, then people cry father cry mother say the government doesn’t listen.
and ideas aside. there’s also implementation. i agree that streaming may not be the best educational policy. but it is a policy that could most realistically be implemented at that time and situation, given that amount of resources and driven by rather urgent needs.
now the situation is different, the needs are different and therefore, rightfully so, the policies are changing.
and Atobe has it right. none of the PIIGS economy comes close to Singapore’s. and thankfully so! cos they are in major financial problems and we, on the contrary, are in quite a sound financial position. btw, Minister Tharman is an economist by training too.
with regards to minimum wage. it sounds like a good idea. i wonder what impact that will have on businesses. will it drive more businesses to relocate out Singapore, and consequently up the unemployment rate? has RP studied that? do they have any concrete data that says that that wouldn’t happen?
# Mee Goondu
From the looks of it, RP was the 1st party to mention about productivity.
It was then incorporated by the ECC, or whatever, economic council blah blah blah.
Till now, nothing contrete is being done to improve productivity. To gauge & reward SMCs and the likes.
(I hope RP takes and initiative, once elected)
Then your q on ‘policy of allowing easy access to foreign workers with special skills’,
The operative word is special skills.Let me take you step by step…
1) Identify…this can be done by the market…companies will know who & what need.
2)If they cannot get that particular special skilled person in Singapore, preferrably a Singaporean. Then they advertise overseas.
3)Companies naturally will know if the person is a special skilled person and would want to hire that person because they will be paying. Compaines will not want to junks, would they.
This will solve the problem for locals and still provide compaines easy access to special skilled people.
We were doing this before.
# Mee Goondu
From the looks of it, RP was the 1st party to mention about productivity.
It was then incorporated by the ECC, or whatever, economic council blah blah blah.
Till now, nothing contrete is being done to improve productivity. To gauge & reward SMCs and the likes.
(I hope RP takes and initiative, once elected)
Then your q on ‘policy of allowing easy access to foreign workers with special skills’,
The operative word is special skills.Let me take you step by step…
1) Identify…this can be done by the market…companies will know who & what need.
2)If they cannot get that particular special skilled person in Singapore, preferrably a Singaporean. Then they advertise overseas.
3)Companies naturally will know if the person is a special skilled person and would want to hire that person because they will be paying. Compaines will not want to pay junks, would they.
This will solve the problem for locals and still provide compaines easy access to special skilled people.
We were doing this before.
atobe: “…Minister Tharman included Education into his portfolio that changes were made by plagiarising ideas from the SDP and CSJ.”
Very true indeed.
The difference is that PAP ministers are self-serving and the current opposition are self-sacrificial.
was RP really the first to talk about productivity?
the National Productivity Board was established in 1972 which evolved into SPRING (set up in 2002 – guess what the P in SPRING stands for?).
if anything, RP caught wind of the decline in productivity growth and played it up. and even then, did the government only start looking at the decline in productivity growth after RP mentioned it? RP first mentioned it in mid May. The Econcomic Strategies Committee was set up in late May. but knowing how the government works, i would not be surprised if the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the ESC included having to examine issues on productivity growth. and knowing how the government works, the TOR was probably spelt out a long time before the announcement of the establishment of the ESC.
and therein lies a possible reason why it seems that the government seems to be not looking into various issues. it usually analyses an issue to death, tear it apart, look at it from as many angles as possible before announcing what it intends to do to the public.
take for instance, the idea for the Esplanade was actually mooted a good 10 years before any public announcements were made. similarly with the establishment of schools like Northlight School and the School of the Arts (SOTA). but the government had to analyse the impact, weight the issue against other concerns, consider whether the context and situation was right before they can announce any implementation details.
on the contrary, the opposition parties and us citizens can suggest anything we want without being concerned with how things would be implemented and find that balance with the many other considerations. so we can suggest anything we want, so long as we sound vaguely reasonable (why don’t we allow all children who want to register in Ai Tong do so? why make them go through the pain of balloting? we should give children from larger families more priorities when it comes to P1 Registration! that would encourage procreation!)
having said that, i hope that the National Productivity Council can come up with some concrete details of how to raise productivity soon. it’s been a while since they were formed.
Increase the FW levy, raise the cost of foreign workers and you will see how innovative and productive companies will suddenly become.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
After reading RP’s press release, it is my belief that what RP needs is a chance in the coming election to prove that they can walk the talk.
@crc – the issue is not who talk about it first, it is the thinking or the motivation behind that is more important. We all can identify and acknowledge the problems, the right solutions will come only with the right motivation. North Korea called itself a Democratic Republic – but it is its lack of democracy that is one of the primary problems of its woes today. It doesn’t matter if P in SPRING stands for productivity – what matter is what the people in the organisation believe in and how they understand the challenges confronting them. If GDP is the only measurement of well being of the country and productivity a measurement of monetary value-add in output vs input then the Singapore government must be the most unproductive government in the world. By paying itself out of this world salaries, the ministers have lost much moral authority in many things they represent. Another often misrepresentation in Singapore is the masking of elitism with meritocracy. If the motivation is wrong, it would be difficult to have the right solutions.
I hope RP can further elaborate on their pledges with a high quality report to back their claims.
eg:
http://www.esc.gov.sg/recommendation.html
oh that’s fresh. now it’s not about who said it first but the motivations? and we are certain that RP is motivated by the welfare of Singaporeans and not to oust the PAP, seize power and enjoy the same perks of being in power?
i am cautious and cynical of ALL politicians until proven otherwise.
all alternative parties are the spurs on PAP’s hides. if a new party takes over, its easier for the former party with it vaste network & depth of experience to keep the new party in check.
if,…. & if (a really big 1 at that) only a new party takes over.
Which industy employs 80-90% foreign workers? If it’s the construction industry, then I don’t see why you are kicking up a big fuss. Who will build our HDB flats, MRT lines if we don’t employ foreign workers?
There should be a distinction made between cost of labour and productivity. In this era of globalisation, we need to compete with the world and measures like minimum wages would increase cost of production and drive businesses away/make it difficult for SMEs to compete. Furthermore, people might develop a crutch mentality, as happened in Malaysia during the NEP period. That would put a strain on the state, which ultimately cause other hardworking Singaporeans to have to bear the cost through higher taxations.
Instead, I concur with the initiative to encourage Singaporenas to upgrade ourselves and hence be able to seek higher wages based on higher productivity e.g. Workfare Training Scheme. Upgrading is the way to go because Singapore’s only resource is our people and we want to make “our people” become “our talent”.
I don’t know why my comments have been censored here as there was nothing profane or off-topic. If this website was serious about alternative views, my comments would have been allowed to stand, instead of the words ‘This comment is awaiting moderation’ magically appearing after three days.
So, let’s get this straight. If the STRAITS TIMES does not publish a comment on their website/paper, we claim that they are suppressing free expression and are scared of opposing views, but when I post something that some people here disagree with, it somehow means I am either a FT/PR/PAP sympathiser who should be silenced. Double standards, anyone? At least the PAPpies are consistent with their censorship.
If this is the prevalent attitude of opposition supporters, it is very disturbing and narrow minded and it has only proven one thing, that Singaporeans think exactly like the PAP, even if they ‘claim’ to be against them. They have the same prejudices and the same fragile egos, minus the power to enforce their will. The PAP is an authoritarian, greedy and selfish party that cannot tolerate any criticism precisely because that’s what Singaporeans have become. They are a reflection of us.
Publish this response if you will, or go ahead and prove me right again.
##It is difficult to see why we should fight so hard to retain industries that employ 80-90% foreign workers as it just increases the competition for domestic inputs whose supply is inelastic, such as land.##
Well done, you have got one of the “right bottons”; excuse me, it is just one of the right bottons; of many critical issues “neglected” by this bunch of idiotic million-dollar nerds.
Have got close to perfect million-dollar pay yet, with mediocre performances, a real buch of useless million-dollar nerds next to nothing else!
yck, it is ultimately a matter of choice and it is for the people to decide.
If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we need to build more HDBs, MRT lines and so on so we can boost the economy. To boost the economy, we need more foreign workers (both skilled and unskilled). As more new people arrive, we need to build more HDBs and MRTs and so the cycle goes on. Ultimately, we will be a nation of 50 storey HDB blocks.
The alternative is to slow the growth and, as E-Jay said in one memorable post, breathe the air and smell the flowers.
Be happy with less. Its up to you (and to all of us).
Rajiv, your logic is flawed. there is no cycle. the group which would require more HDB flats and MRTs aren’t the ones who would be required to build them. so having more transient foreign workers in the construction sector won’t lead to a cycle of needing more construction.
but i agree that it’s perhaps good if we could all be happy with less. i wonder how many people actually can do that. and if the majority of people can’t, then can the government be happy with less?
crc, the facts don’t bear this out.
Between 1990 and 2010 2 million more people have been added to Singapore’s population. Where are they staying and how are they traveling?
dear TOC, please let people like “Nation of Whiners” post what they do to encourage more people to air their views, however unpopular. because they do offer an alternative view, dun go overboard to silence critics like MIWs.
thanks.
m.i.n
Rajiv, of course those 2 million people have to stay somewhere and use public transport. what i was pointing out is that there isn’t a “cycle” that you had suggested. a cycle of the sort that you are suggesting is where a leads to increase in b and b leads to an increase in a. but the increase of those 2 million, while necessitating the building of flats and MRT lines, but the building of flats and MRT lines does not necessarily lead to a need to increase population.
the need to increase population is caused by other issues. so there is no “cycle”, no feedback loop that will necessarily spiral out of hand.
Yes, it does. The argument is circular.
First, we need to make a distinction between migrant workers and immigrants (PRs and new citizens). It i the latter that I am talking about (while I think you are focusing on the former).
As more people come in to settle here, we need to build more facilities for them (schools, hospitals etc). With more people, we need more immigrants to service them (waiters, cooks, cleaners etc). When these new workers come in (and are given PRs), we need to build more facilities for them (flats, more roads) and so on.
That is why I say it is a cycle ie a never-ending cycle until we end up with an island that is really crowded. I didn’t mean “cyclical” in the sense of up and down :)
crc, 2 September 2010
it may not be matter of the rate & pace of growth, but how that growth is tranlated to the improved quality of life for its people.
with more having to make do with less & less each year, to slow down to catch a breath & smell the flowers is but a dream.
transcient workers are not only those in the construction industry, they can be found in hospitality, retail, F&B, service industries too. they live in rented HDB units, either whole units or occupying just a room (shared). these group of transcient workers are the ones that drive the demand for public housing up & add a strain on our public transport.
this latter group, unlike those in the construction, shipyard or Jurong island, Bukom counterparts, have a greater impact on on public housing & public transport network. working or not they take public transport to commute.
perhaps you are not aware of this?
……………………………..
Rajiv Chaudhry, 2 September 2010
as for transient workers, most companies that hire them in large droves. most live in dorms, economies of scale means chartering transport makes sense. so does catering meals for them, to minimise time lost if they were to head out to far off location for meals. most major construction sites do not have eateries within walking distance, taking public transport is a very large financial burden to their paltry pay.
on this part they do not factor too much in influencing the demand in public housing & transport.
only on their off days, they do travel by taking public transport. if they’re lucky they get 1 day off a week, if not its 1 day off for every 2 weeks due to overtime demands.
mice is nice,
yes i am aware of them. the flat two doors down from mine is rented out to a group from PRC working in don’t know what factory. they are quite problematic. smoking at the stair well, hanging their clothes in the corridor (and i don’t think they use detergent cause their clothes stink!).
so i agree. those sort of transient workers often bring negative impacts. and i agree that we should restructure our economy, though not necessarily through minimum wages, so that we can still grow at a pace which brings about improved standards of living for Singaporeans without needing so many of such transient foreign workers.
before i’m accused of being xenophobic, i must say that not all foreigners are problematic la. right next door to me is a family originally from M’sia. they are very nice people. and there are some from PRC a few floors down (more educated sort), also very nice people.
crc, 2 September 2010
thanks for the quick reply. :)
if the transcient workers who are culturally diffferent takes some getting used to is being brought in, in large numbers, would it really test the limits of the locals?
smoking at stairwells, near their windows, etc, means that 2nd hand smoke entering neighbouring unit with windows open is a health issue. of course, the arrogant way is to blame people for leaving them open & demand they switch on their aircon & close the windows. lol…
as for smelly clothings, it could be a ventilation, moisture issue. wet clothings take a much longer time to dry, damp clothings smell- even with enough detergent. it would not be realistic to demand they not wash their clothes in our hot & humid climate.
minimum wages have had negative impact on other economies, but more money in form of cash can directly improve the standard of living for the lower waged workers.
transcient workers are here not always to fill a need, but sometimes a want for higher profit margin. the direct social costs (& indirect national issues of NS & low birthrates) of going cheap is echoed many times over online…
oops,
missed out some details…
“wet clothings take a much longer time to dry DURING A CLOUDY OR RAINY DAY, damp clothings smell- even with enough detergent.”
additional details…
with more people crammed into a home/room to minimise rentals, means more clothings. more clothes crammed into same space to air so that damp smell will more likely result?
-.-”
Details of the $9000 grant can be found on the ST on 02 Sep with the details of qualification given as well.
I think the issue here about the $9000 is to REWARD.. not to motivate or as an incentive for completing the NS. TRF wants to make it free for NSmen but where is the money gonna come from? Govt budget?? Defence budget?? Isn’t that gonna increase the cost burden of the ruling Govt, irregardless of who is the main ruling party.
Cutting the NS period to one year is an absolutely horrendous idea to even think about. Would you trust a guy who just spent 4 months passing his fitness test, the next 6 months learning how to operate a Leopard tank and just two months in active duty to protect our homeland?? Hell no!!! It is MY country and I want whoever is protecting it including me to be well-trained. I dunno what Kenneth did in his NS but I’m sure he did not take too long to dislike what he was doing and wanted to end the misery earlier.
And about a target of zero death during training within the lifetime of Parliament.. Is there ever a plan to have fatality planned as part of army training or exercise? And why just for the lifetime of Parliament? why is there a time-frame set for zero fatality? Shouldn’t that be the ultimate objective for every training and exercise carried out?
Just curious about his train of thoughts when he mentioned the above.
@mice is nice
Quote: “all alternative parties are the spurs on PAP’s hides. if a new party takes over, its easier for the former party with it vaste network & depth of experience to keep the new party in check.
if,…. & if (a really big 1 at that) only a new party takes over.”
The only problem here is that all the opposition parties are too focused on their own agenda and not pulling together all their resources and forming one HUGE party which I’m sure the PAP would be seriously worried about..
It has been so many elections and there are so many ‘genius’ amongst the opposition parties, I’m sure this idea has been mooted before but none is willing to offer the merger for fear of losing their place or voice. The forming of one powerful opposition party would have a massive effect in tilting the poll results in favour of those wanting a change.
I-A-I-A…
well, there is safety in numbers. but people being people, may not think alike, take the same path, share identical lifestyles, etc…
i hope you accommodate these differences when you wish alternative parties would just form a HUGE party to challenge the PAP. they may just end up being a larger party of ‘yes’ people due to peer pressure alone. will they agree publicly only to disagree in private? will there be an invisible whip to make them toe the line just to put a false united front?
if they wanted to, they would have done so long ago, if they are doing it so late in the game on the urging of the people, are such political parties more imcompetent (lazy to act) than the current ruling party itself?
a party that switches sides too often risk being seen as weak, lacking leadership qualities. a coalition of weak parties may seem strong with the large numbers, but even the large PAP couldn’t get its act together to solve bread & butter issues. the risks of not standing together shoulder-to-sholder & synergising their strength is there…
there are limits to what a genius can do, just look at all the “top brains” in civil service. its not what the genius can do but what type of evironment the genius is in. monkeys are smart animals but in the zoo all they need to do is look pretty…
I-A-I-A…
i agree partially with you on most of your NS views.
my opinion too that the 2 year stint should stay. reducing it may mean a less well trained people in charge of often dangerous weapons. time too is needed for growing muscle memory. in times of duress, muscle memory honed over time may save lives. reaction will be more instinctive, in a war, where got time to practice?! heh…
the annual call up could be reduced to 8 years? too heavy an NS (army, police or civil defence) commitment is exacting a heavy toll that is detrimental to national defence.
think, late marriages means men take much longer to reach financial stability to be good enough for our local women. resulting in later marriages & low birthrates- national security issues!
annual call-ups after the 2 years stint should be shortened to take into account the increasingly venerable local economies. when men are retrenched, these annual call-ups puts them at a very big disadvantage over females & male foreigners.
fitness requirements that accompanies the annual call-ups should be reduced to only the 1st 3 years (IMPO). let the various govt agencies formulate ways to improve quality of work/life standards, encourage people to keep fit, etc. the hardnosed carrot-&-stick approach (RT) is just a slapdash band-aid. is the RT approach even working?
@mice is nice..
glad to have found someone who wants to protect our country as much as me.. but the point here is how can TRP even think about proposing to cut it to one year? does he seriously believe that one year is enough? It seems to tell me that he is ready to propose something that sounds very nice but not realistic.
I still think the late marriages and low birth-rates has nothing to do with national service. Only 2 years to serve when you are only 18 years old doesn’t really affect marriage and birthrate. How many people actually get married and have children when they are below 24? The real reason is that the new generation are better-learned, having travelled more for holidays and so that want to have better quality of life, more time together as a couple, enjoy their income with minimum commitment financially and eventually when they are ready to have children, well.. they might be close to 40 already before they know it.
the IPPT requirements should stay cos seriously, apart from being forced to get into shape, how many people actually really do keep fit. honestly, i am fitter mentally than physically through the constant engagement of brain exercises and computer games and the fittest part of my body is actually my fingers. So, unless i am going back for ICT, i hardly hit the gym.
and isn’t it human’s nature to do something serious for themselves unless forced to? getting back to shape to pass IPPT without having to do RT.. doing last minute revision in order to pass tests.. just to name a few. encouragement only works for those who are motivated themselves. most of us are the reactive type and the carrot-&-stick approach is by far the most effective method used throughout the society.
typo error… last paragraph.
isn’t it human’s nature NOT to do something serious for themselves unless forced to?
@mice is nice
I dun agree about the part where in order to accommodate the differences between the parties, none of the opposition parties are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the nation.
If all of the parties have the same goal, that is to provide a voice on any issues that the govt have proposed that may be unreasonable, why should they let the small differences stand in their way of a merger? I am sure there are many way of approaching to voice their stand against proposed policies but what is the most important is that the common and ultimate goal of their role in the political arena.
As in all parties, the stronger leaders and the “real” leaders will stand out and take the lead. Isn’t that the way things should be??? Or would you rather have more than a handful of opposition parties fighting their own battles, with the support being diluted to the less worthy leaders rather than giving the maximum support to an able leader whom may make a by far better bet of getting a victory?
Like you said, a coalition of weak parties may seem strong with the large numbers. Isn’t that a better chance to make a louder voice or noise, whichever you like to call it, rather than having many smaller voice that may not even register a ring?
Just take a look at US, the Democrats and the Republicans. Seriously, how many of the senators in both the parties are really leaders? they also have a mess to handle considering the size of the nation. But having said that, look at the changing of leadership of the nation. The chance of a change in the ruling party is so much higher with all the support given to a credible opposition rather than diluting it. And we will also see from the merger who are the real credible leaders and who are the indian chiefs.
The RP promises seem very nice, but they are just that. They didn’t even provide any data on how they are going to do that or fund all their promises.
The current opposition is probably aiming for the weakest link to gain entry. So they are not willing to work together, they would rather be a big fish in a small pond. Since they lack the numbers of candidates, perhaps they should aim for the Heads like MM, SM and PM to deal a heavy blow to the PAP.
Of course they might be dealt a deadly blow themselves.
I-A-I-A…, 4 september 2010
some effects of NS may not be immediate or direct.
eh, delayed marriages result when men take longer time to reach financial stabilty. lower birthrates happen when people who are a result of delayed marriages change their minds having babies as they may not want to risk their careers after building them painstakingly?
i too wish i am part of the well travelled young, but sadly not…
as for the other points you raised, i do not agree with you. i have raised my points.
the path each alternative party wishes to take to reach its goal even a common goal may not be the same.
there is a way to motivate people to keep fit & stay healthy, like how people were so motivated to chase the 5Cs decades back. the benefits are real & tangible. there must be enough political will to do it, & do it consistantly over a long period.
i hope alternative parties do not set limits upon themselves merely as a voice, but the brains to lead S’pore. for now, raising pointed questions without giving freebie solutions should be the way. being the alternative voice alone may not be enough convince people to vote for them.
@mice is nice
i do agree on the results of late financial stability, but that is the result of the cost of economy. Taking in perspective, the cost of living increasing in this country is not met with a similar increase income, coupled that with inflation. that is the real reason for delayed marriages and late family forming. the NS didn’t happen when we are in the peak of financial situation.
quote: “the path each alternative party wishes to take to reach its goal even a common goal may not be the same.”
throughout these years, they have all taken their own paths trying to achieve the same goal. but have they gotten somewhere at least to speak of? I am afraid to said none of the party have any achievement to speak about, less Mr Chiam and his party.
so why is it that they would not give a shot at walking together and gathering their strength and covering each other’s weaknesses, least getting them exploited. Having a group of Indian chiefs does not make you stronger than having one competent leader with a dozen followers.
My peace stays at that.